-
Zenger Acquitted of Sedition
New York newspaper owner John Peter Zenger is acquitted for published criticisms of New York's colonial governor. -
New York State Sedition Act
New York's state legislature passes a sedition act making it a felony to speak or print that "the King Hath, or of right ought to have, any authority, or Dominion in or over this State." -
Constitution Ratified
The Constitution is ratified. Many states requested that there be the addition of a Bill of Rights. -
First Amendment Ratified
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is ratified, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." -
Sedition Act
Congress passed the Sedition Act, making it illegal to write against any part of the government. -
Tunis Wortman's Treatise on Free Speech
Tunis Wortman, a lawyer, publishes A Treatise Concerning Political Inquiry and the Liberty of the Press. The treatise argues for a very broad right of free speech. -
Schenk v. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court affirms the conviction of Charles Schenk under the 1917 Espionage Act. This act makes it a felony to willfully obstruct the recruiting of military soldiers.. Schenk had sent out letters to soldiers who were recruited through the draft and telling them about how they should figth entering the war. -
Abrams v. United States
The Supreme Court affirms the conviction of Jacob Abrams under the 1918 Sedition Act for publishing pamphlets which criticized the war. -
Smith Act
Congress passes the Smith Act, making it illegal to advocate the "desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States." -
Bridges v. California
The United States Supreme Court overturns the contempt citations issued against a labor leader and newspaper for criticizing judicial decisions. The Court further clarifies the clear and present danger test in holding that "what finally emerges from the 'clear and present danger' cases, is a working principle that the substantive evil must be extremely serious, and the degree of imminence extremely high, before utterances can be punished." -
Chaplinksky v. New Hampshire
The Supreme Court rules that "fighting words" are not protected under the First Amendment. -
Terminiello v. City of Chicago
In Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the United States Supreme Court overturns the conviction of Arthur Terminiello for breach of peace arguing that the definition of breach of peace employed during the trial violated the First Amendment. During Terminiello's original trial, the judge had instructed jury members to find Terminiello guilty if they concluded that his speech "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance." -
Dennis v. United States
The Supreme Court holds that the Smith Act of 1940 does not violate the First Amendment. -
Yates v. United States
United States Supreme Court rules for a second time that the Smith Act of 1940, which makes it illegal to advocate, verbally or in print, the "desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States," is constitutional.81 But the Court narrows the law's application in holding that for advocacy to be illegal it must aim at achieving concrete results. Advocacy of violent anti-government action "as an abstract principle" does not justify government intervention. -
Ginzburg v. United States
In Ginzburg v. United States, the United States Supreme Court affirms the conviction of Ralph Ginzburg for pandering, or advertising erotic materials. The Court holds that even though the advertisements themselves are not pornographic per se—that is, they contain no depictions of sex and they use no obscene words—they can be legitimately evaluated by the court "against a background of commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal." Within this broader context, t -
Tinker v/ Des Moines
In Tinker v. Des Moines, the United States Supreme Court establishes a standard favorable to a broad interpretation of students' First Amendment rights. In a case prompted by the suspension of three Iowa public school students for wearing black armbands to school in silent protest against the Vietnam War, the Court decides that the First Amendment does apply to public school students. "It can hardly be argued," -
Stanley v. Georgia
In Stanley v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court holds that individuals have a limited right to possess pornography, except child pornography, in their own homes. The ruling implicitly denies the contention made in Roth v. United States that all pornography fell outside First Amendment protections. To reach this exception, the Court couples this limited First Amendment speech protection to privacy protections suggested by other amendments in the Bill of Rights. because the ruling rests -
Bethel v. Fraser
The United States Supreme Court decides that the First Amendment does not protect high school students from punishment for disruptive or offensive speech in school. The particular disruptive and offensive speech in question was an off-color nomination address delivered during a 1983 student body election in a Washington high school by a student named Matthew Fraser. In Bethel, the Supreme Court rejects Fraser's argument that the First Amendment protects his innuendo-laced commentary.